Just for theory's sake, I'd think that looser crosses would allow the mains to move and snap back more easily than putting the slack on the mains. On the other racquet, tighter crosses would make the mains deflect more deeply in the weave. Wouldn't this jam the mains up more and get in the way of their movement?

Just for theory's sake, I'd think that looser crosses would allow the mains to move and snap back more easily than putting the slack on the mains. On the other racquet, tighter crosses would make the mains deflect more deeply in the weave. Wouldn't this jam the mains up more and get in the way of their movement?

That's what I would have thought ie tighter crosses = less spin, but its not something I've tried very much (have always strung at the same tension M/C for the same string), so its not something I'm sure about at all.

I throw the question out there in the hope of futher responses or insight......

Its the mains that produce the most spin in your racquet, so stringing the mains lower will produce more spin.

But on the flip side, you also have to loosen your crosses too. Correct me if i'm wrong, but when the crosses are tighter than the mains, that will raise the overall reference tension... sort of undo-ing your efforts in loosening your mains.

If you're stringing at 53/52, then bring both down at least two lbs, if not more, together, in order to increase spin.

And, perhaps string a smaller gauge too. The thinner the string, the more spin.

You do realise that you still haven't explained your previous suggestion about how you can string a racquet without having to cut it from the reel, that it wasn't necessary to measure string lengths etc.

You do realise that you still haven't explained your previous suggestion about how you can string a racquet without having to cut it from the reel, that it wasn't necessary to measure string lengths etc.

I'm still waiting for your explanation.

You're going to wait for a while, because I don't even know what you're talking about.

Let's assume a softer main (gut or a soft multi) and a stiffer cross (poly or a stiff multi or synth gut). Generally with this setup you'd want a lower tension cross and higher tension main to balance the two. You probably wouldn't want to string the mains looser in this case.

Reverse the above and you might want to string the stiff mains looser and the soft crosses tighter or the same since the natural differences in stiffness might balance the two.

In the two cases above you don't have much of a choice and spin will be determined by other factors.

Assuming a homogeneous setup you generally want the longer mains strung a little bit tighter than the shorter crosses to even out stringbed stiffness. The idea is that the longer mains naturally flex more than the shorter crosses and in the interest of producing a reliable SB you might want to balance the relative performance.

So again, there's not much of a choice in some ways.

The problem is that not paying attention to string choice and pattern first can result in a wonky stringbed. For example, string natural gut mains at 48 and super stiff poly crosses at 52 in a very open pattern and you'll probably have some control issues. Spin will be the last of your worries.

To maximize spin potential start with your choice of mains and crosses, pay attention to string friction and ball friction, and then base relative tension on string choice and density (more open string closer together, more dense you can increase the difference). Worrying about spin potential and relative tension before considering string choice and pattern is putting the cart before the horse.

Finally, the mains do contribute most to spin but the must be just right, not too soft (won't snap back fast to flick the ball and cause spin) and not too stiff (fail to move enough). I've experienced both using the same strings. For every string choice and frame there's a Goldilocks Tension for spin, power, and control.

__________________
Only on Talk Tennis can you find people who believe
that 10 feet of lead tape has no effect on a frame...

What I'm highlighting - and I've seen this in numerous posts of yours - is that you act all cocky and glib, like a know it all, but in reality you don't have any clue whatsoever about the subject matter that you comment on, whether it's strings, racquets, technique etc

Your post about how it's possible to string a racquet without cutting the string from the reel is a very obvious example of your stupidity.

You try and make out that you know more than you actually do but in short, you're a fake. A whopper. And a big one at that.

What I'm highlighting - and I've seen this in numerous posts of yours - is that you act all cocky and glib, like a know it all, but in reality you don't have any clue whatsoever about the subject matter that you comment on, whether it's strings, racquets, technique etc

Your post about how it's possible to string a racquet without cutting the string from the reel is a very obvious example of your stupidity.

You try and make out that you know more than you actually do but in short, you're a fake. A whopper. And a big one at that.

You should be old enough to know one thing in life: you pick your battles. You don't make the biggest fuss over rushed typing.... "OMG, he must be the stupidest man on earth. He said C before B! Ah. So wrong and so arrogant!!!!"

And of course, in all this, you miss the big picture: If you want to know how much string to use, you measure how much it took and account for it next time. That was the main idea of that paragraph, but you're obsessed about errors from rushed typing. You must have been too cool for school thirty/forty years ago.

I'll get an editor one of these days to monitor my blog posts. It obviously matters for you old farts. He'll do the thinking for you so you don't have to.

SAT skills don't go away just because you've graduated from high school. ...what's the author's main point in lines 18 through 24? You're not reading A Tale of Two Cities. It's an internet blog. You got caught up in word choice, allusions, symbolism and the works.